Bad cards -- or just unpromising winners?

[Orpheus]

I apologize if this seems unfocused, but I don't know any terms or names of well-known analyses to search for.

About a month ago, I was on a downright silly win streak in Omaha High. As it petered out, I noticed that my percentage of "would have won" hands remained significantly higher than expectation, but most of them weren't playable preflop. Since good Omaha High relies on strict opening hand selection, I just let them slide by. I wasn't going to let myself chase "luck' for a post facto observed trend which might vanish any second. [Good thing, too--I'd have lost my shirt over the next two weeks of "dry cards" if I'd gotten in the habit of playing any looser than usual.]

However, this get me thinking. On review of my modest PT database (only 6K played hands, I just got PT recently), I found that in most of my losing sessions, the number of "would've won" hands remained roughly at expectation, but fewer *looked* playable at PF. Maybe I'm just too tight (quite possible, but at low stakes enough *other* newbies call optimistically and their collective draw luck is dismaying), but I suspect there's is some interesting math hiding under this observation.

Alas, my analysis is stymied. I can't think of how to proceed further. I don't expect this to yield results that can be directly applied to my play, but I think there are som insights in there, if only I knew where to look..

Players often simply attribute dry spells to "bad cards", but of course, "matching" is more important as apparent preflop value. Good cards that don't match the flop are just as deadly, and (my interest) junk hands often happen to match the board out of proportion with expectation.

It would be interesting (to me), for example, if it turned out that the actual variance in win/loss rates correlated as much or more with streaks of "junk hands that would've won" than with streaks of "poor starting hands" (which might, paradoxically result if the variance in "would've won hands" was significantly less than the variance in "good starting hands" -- i.e. the fraction you "would've won" may be "less streaky" than the fraction that are sensibly playable)

Why am I interested in this? I really couldn't say. Maybe it'll just help me Keep the (statistical) Faith the next time I'm on a dry spell, or weird patterns arise (like those long runs of flops that would have been perfect for our *last* dealt hand -- or, more tempting, our *next* hand)

Math suggestions? Has a "winning junk hand" analysis been done before (surely it must've). Search tips?

I'll probably revisit this question when I have enough hands to be worth analyzing. I often do that with old puzzlers.